D&D 5E Great news on Skills

[Frostmarrow]

I'd like to see a number, maybe expressed as %, tied to each respective class. Maybe rogues would have 80%, clerics 70%, fighters and wizards 60%. This coupled with the skills you get from background we can have a very simple yet balanced skill system. So a wizard blacksmith and a rogue blacksmith will both have a skill for smithing but the rogue will simply be better at it. This number should be as hard-coded as hit die, i.e fighters have 1d10 hit points and 60% on skills.

 

[the Jester]

I really like the idea of skill training giving advantage. In addition, if you gradually gain a bonus on that skill as you advance, you've got the best of both worlds here IMHO.

 

[Shaghayegh]

I really like the idea of skill training giving advantage. In addition, if you gradually gain a bonus on that skill as you advance, you've got the best of both worlds here IMHO.

What I hated about the 4E skills was the lack of variation between characters. Just because two characters have the same Wisdom, say, does not mean they should be equally skilled in sensing a bluff. What if one of them really had better training and practiced more? What if one is just less interested in social skills? Skills should be develoved over time, through effort and focus. They should be dictated by the needs and priorities of the character...

 

[Falling Icicle]

But the only reason they have DC 25s on the chart is because characters can reach it. If the numbers were bounded such that no character could ever reach a certain DC... then you don't need to have that DC on the chart. Pretty self-explanatory. Make the chart only as big as you need it to be.

You're right, but without skill bonuses players would have only one way of reaching those DCs: by having a 20 ability score, the maximum possible without magic items. Skill bonuses allow PCs that aren't paragons of human perfection to have a chance at succees too. It also allows those who have a 20 ability score to succeed a bit more often.

Which is cool. You don't have to like the idea. But I'm just suggesting that what you are looking for, I believe, goes further away from the ideals of bounded accuracy.

I'm just defending the current system, which does have bounded accuracy.

Because as I said above... the further apart any two characters are in their modifiers... the larger a DC chart you have to have and the less likely a DM is going to be able to create DCs that remain possible for the low end to succeed at while not completely trivializing the high end. Which is what bounded accuracy is meant to fix.

Even with skill bonuses in play, a DC 25 task is never trivial. Even those prodigies that have a +8 total bonus will still fail on such tasks 80% of the time.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Even with skill bonuses in play, a DC 25 task is never trivial. Even those prodigies that have a +8 total bonus will still fail on such tasks 80% of the time.

And the pinnacle would have +12, so, a 25 DC is still a challenge, sounds good to me.

 

[GameDoc]

I really like the idea of skill training giving advantage. In addition, if you gradually gain a bonus on that skill as you advance, you've got the best of both worlds here IMHO.

Cannot XP you again right now. But I like this point.

 

[pemerton]

Well if there's anything resembling a Skill Challenge framework (and there should be, only the improved DMG2+4 years experience version, not the DMG1 version) you'd be shocked how often people end up rolling their "subpar" skills. A good challenge (AKA one time based with multiple party rolls, not direct failure based) often drags other members in organically - and while they can focus on doing what they're good at, usually at least one player ends up doing something they're just not too good at. It's part of what makes them interesting.

I was thinking the same thing (but can't XP you at this time).

 

[GreyICE]

What I hated about the 4E skills was the lack of variation between characters. Just because two characters have the same Wisdom, say, does not mean they should be equally skilled in sensing a bluff. What if one of them really had better training and practiced more? What if one is just less interested in social skills? Skills should be develoved over time, through effort and focus. They should be dictated by the needs and priorities of the character...

Shouldn't the one who is more experienced with Bluffing be trained in Bluff?

I admit 4E skills didn't have much variation, which was a huge flaw, and overall they were fairly awful, but it wasn't as bad as 3E, and D&D just doesn't seem to have the setup for a complex skill system (for whatever reason).

 

[Roger]

Any love for 'must be trained' usages?

I was thinking it might be a good generalized requirement for generalized toolkits -- thieves' tools and healers' kits being the obvious ones, but I think it could be extended.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[drothgery]

What I hated about the 4E skills was the lack of variation between characters. Just because two characters have the same Wisdom, say, does not mean they should be equally skilled in sensing a bluff. What if one of them really had better training and practiced more? What if one is just less interested in social skills? Skills should be develoved over time, through effort and focus. They should be dictated by the needs and priorities of the character...

To have the same chance of seeing through a bluff in 4e, two characters don't just need to have the same Wisdom. They both need to be trained or untrained in Insight, their level divided by two and rounded down must be the same, they must have the same background or racial bonuses to Insight, they must both have or lack skill focus in Insight, they must have the same magical equipment that gives or doesn't give a bonus to Insight, and they must both have or lack any powers that affect seeing through a bluff.